Sunday, April 7, 2013

Mark Sanford Hiking the Campaign Trail


The year’s best April Fools joke was played a day late, and on the GOP. On April 2nd Mark Sanford won the Republican primary for the 1st congressional seat of South Carolina. Sanford has won the right to face Elizabeth Colbert Busch, who happens to be the sister of late night personality (and Super PAC owner) Stephen Colbert. The RNC has been thrust into a lose-lose situation. They can either get in a fundraising and media battle with Colbert to save a seat they have not spent money on in decades, or they can watch Colbert’s sister steal a historically red seat out from under them. Either option looks bad for a party relying on its stranglehold on both the South and the House of Representatives. This race is more than just a funny headline that ought be gracing the cover of The Onion; this is another example of the crossroads that must be faced by todays Republican Party.
            Incredibly, Sanford could potentially win, as recent polls have him behind Colbert Busch by as little as two points. This is a very wealthy and right-leaning district. It is also essentially the same district (after 2012 redistricting) as the one Sanford represented in the early 2000s.
 If Sanford does manage to win, the GOP must be questioning how beholden he will be to them. National and local Republicans did not exactly rush to Sanford’s aid when his scandal broke and many of them were certainly hoping that his opponent would win the Republican primary.
Has there ever been a bigger wild card politician than Sanford? He has risen like a phoenix out of his self inflicted ashes and seems determined to gain power once again. This man seems bound by nothing. His party will be supporting him only for congressional seat numbers, his constituents only because they are demographically far too conservative for Colbert Busch to truly represent their will. If he is elected, nothing will stop him from voting however he desires. The man truly has nothing to lose and no one to represent but himself.
Sanford has been running a campaign based on redemption. It’s a smart gambit. Bring up your affair before anyone else does and your opponents cannot talk about it. Ask your mistress to become your fiancé and take her on the campaign trail. Suddenly she has a name (Belen Chapur) and a face. He has repeatedly thanked her for her longstanding suffering. Voters are starting to feel sympathy for her. Sanford has turned his greatest weakness into a strength.
But there is someone else Sanford has been thanking besides his fiancé: God. Religion and forgiveness have become the backbone of this campaign. This is probably a good thing for Sanford, but it is definitely a bad thing for the conservative party.
The RNC is trying to move away from the stigma that their party is controlled by the far right wing and that Evangelical Christians make up the party base. In contrast, it appears Sanford will run on a social conservative platform.
If the RNC chooses to roll out big bucks to bail out Sanford, they will be forced to tap into campaign coffers meant for the all-important 2014 congressional elections. Republicans can simply not afford to lose their congressional majority.
The Republican Party is truly at a crossroads. They must abandon the tainted and extreme right wing elements of their party to have a fighting chance. The Republican party of the last eight years has been characterized as too old, uncompromising, sloppy, and stupid to win the big elections. They are trying to move in a new direction by placing the moderate Christie and Latino Rubio at the vanguard of their party.
The 2012 election gave them a jolt. Party leadership saw the writing on the wall and they have tried to change. They have taken some new more progressive stances on policy, most notably in immigration.
But they seem unable to help themselves from continuing to support bad candidates in important, public races.
How many Newt Gingriches and Mark Sanfords must the Republican Party suffer through before they decide enough is enough? Southern white males who philander are a bad investment. You do not see the DNC letting John Edwards out of his cage much these days.
Updating their party’s platform on key issues was a step. An actual effort to gain the Latino vote will help too. But until the RNC stops aiding candidates like Sanford, and even allowing them to run, their hopes for 2014 and beyond will look just as bleak as they did on November 7, 2012.

3 comments:

  1. At least one aspect of your commentary on the Republican party is absolutely correct; They cannot continue on the same path and expect different results on election day. It took several rounds of abuse before the party leadership finally stood up to announce their support for an open look at previously hard-stance Republican positions. Most recently (as you mentioned), the issue of immigration reform rose to the daily headlines as the bipartisan "Gang of 8" released their plan for a pathway to citizenship of America's 11 million undocumented citizens.

    Unfortunately, I think you've missed the mark in your chosen examples of candidates the party should forgo. It would seem logical for a party to neglect politicians whose reputations have been tarnished by scandal. The research however on over 250 cases of congressional malfeasance indicates that politicians can successfully reemerge from scandals a majority of the time. I wrote more about this view with supporting research on my own blog at the following link and I encourage you to check to out: http://politicalcommunicationandmessaging.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-missing-impact-of-scandals.html

    So while I agree with your reviews about the need for fundamental reforms within the Republican party, I disagree with your assessment regarding the political demise of candidates like Mark Sanford.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Southern white males who philander are a bad investment." Not only is this not true, it is also not an exclusive facet of the Republican Party that you propose. Two words. Bill Clinton! Enough said.

    Philandering and public scandals are not something that is unique to the Republican Party, nor are they as career destroying as they used to be.

    As evidenced with President Bill Clinton the public are able and willing to forgive politicians who engage in moral misdeeds. The electorate are changing. Moral relativism has replaced absolute morality. What is good for me is not necessarily good for you. That is the position we have found ourselves in today. We no longer feel the need to impose our morality on others.

    Mark Sanford and Anthony Weiner will do well in their respective races. They may not win, but I doubt the morality of their previous choices will play much into the electorate's decision.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I appreciate the link Jared, that is a very interesting set of Data. Andrew I certainly do agree that this not simply being a Republican issue, Anthony Weiner is prime example that this is not simply a Republican problem. This post was simply about flaws within the Republican party, specifically their strategy, funding and who they choose to back.
    While I do agree that this is not simply a Republican issue, I do not see Mark Sanford or Anthony Weiner doing that well in their respective races:
    Weiner is not getting support from the DNC or the New York Democratic party. They are supporting current Speaker of the New York City Council, Christine Quinn. She is up over Wiener by 15 points. Polls are showing that the electorate has a negative view of Weiner, and do not even fully support him running:
    http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2013/04/q-poll-tabs-anthony-weiner-2-in-hypothetical-ny-mayor-primary-negs-still-high
    Democratic leadership is not supporting him; that's the difference.
    Meanwhile Sanford is in a dead heat in a district that has voted vastly Republican for the last several decades:
    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/297675-poll-sanford-colbert-busch-tied-in-south-carolina
    On top of that, a further episode in his scandal led to the GOP pulling funding from his campaign; so they obviously do view his scandal as important.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/17/gop-pulls-funds-sanford-election-bid/
    Unfortunately for the GOP they came to this conclusion way to late, having all ready pumped lots of money into his campaign.

    ReplyDelete